Lead Paint Bill Is Attacked By Democrats

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

Published: June 22, 1999

A bill intended to clarify the city's laws protecting children from lead paint poisoning, one that has the support of City Council Speaker Peter F. Vallone and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, came under vehement attack yesterday by Council Democrats, who said it favored landlords and the city over children.

Normally, a bill supported by the two leaders would sail easily to passage. But at a raucous public hearing that began in the morning and lasted nearly 10 hours, the Democrats attacked the legislation, carrying out an unusually loud challenge to their Speaker.

They said the measure would allow landlords and city regulators too much time to correct hazardous lead violations and would place too much responsibility on the city's poorest residents to report suspicions of lead contamination.

The bill was intended by Mr. Vallone, a Democrat, and Mr. Giuliani, a Republican, as a bipartisan effort to comply with a judge's orders that New York City either rewrite its lead law or begin fully enforcing the existing statute, which is considered outdated.

Mayor Giuliani, at his daily news conference, defended the bill. ''We think the legislation is very fair and that it does protect everyone in a reasonable and responsible way,'' he said.

The stakes are high. Lead paint was banned nationwide in 1978, but as many as 30,000 New York City children, mostly in poor and minority neighborhoods, are at risk of lead poisoning. If ingested, lead can cause learning disabilities, hyperactivity and seizures.

Also hanging in the balance are the millions of dollars in abatement costs and liability claims that are being paid by the city and by private landlords. In addition, the city incurs millions more each year in regulatory expenses like inspections and testing.

The rancor in the City Council sets the stage for a frenzy of negotiations and potential amendments to the bill if its sponsors hope to persuade the Housing and Buildings Committee, made up of eight Democrats and one Republican, to approve the measure and place it before the full Council for a vote.

The existing lead paint statute, written in 1982, was broadly interpreted by a state court in 1989 as requiring landlords to remove all lead paint from any apartment built before 1960 in which children now live and peeling paint has been found.

But there is now general agreement that enforcing that broad interpretation would pose even greater risks to children. Experts say the lead dust released during the removal of paint is more dangerous than undisturbed paint, as long as it does not deteriorate.

Aides to the Mayor and the Speaker have been scrambling to rewrite the statute by June 30 in hopes of avoiding citations for contempt of court.

The often rowdy hearing offered a spectacle for anyone familiar with the Council's routine. While the bill was sponsored by the Democratic leadership, only Councilman Thomas V. Ognibene of Queens, the Republican minority leader, asked friendly questions about it.

The Democrats at the hearing, meanwhile, subjected the city's Health Commissioner and its Housing Preservation and Development Commissioner to hours of searing questioning, and at times forced them to concede points that contradicted the Mayor's statements.

As the hearing opened, the measure came under immediate criticism from Councilman Stanley E. Michels, a Manhattan Democrat who had written his own version of a new lead paint law. His bill had broad support in the Council but was set aside by the Speaker's office in an effort to reach a compromise with the Mayor.

''What we have before us is nothing more than a landlord protection bill,'' Mr. Michels said angrily.

The new bill would hold the city responsible for eliminating lead paint hazards when landlords fail to do so. But it seeks to encourage landlords to do the job themselves by easing work regulations and setting a more relaxed time frame during which repairs must be made.

The law would give the Housing Preservation and Development Department 15 to 25 days to respond to complaints with an inspection and 60 days after the inspection to issue a notice of violation. After a notice was issued, building owners would have 21 days to fix the problem.

One controversial aspect of the bill would allow landlords to apply for unlimited 30-day extensions in which to complete repairs. Mr. Michels suggested that a landlord could easily postpone repairs for 10 months by using extensions.

Asked whether the law should require the city to respond to complaints faster, the Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development, Richard T. Roberts, acknowledged that his agency often responded to complaints of hazardous conditions within 72 hours. But he insisted that the law should not require the agency to do so.

Critics of the bill also pointed out that it would not require a ''clearance test'' after a landlord has corrected a lead paint violation. The test is used to check levels of lead dust after repairs have been done to see if the work has been effective.

The Giuliani administration has so far insisted that clearance tests not be required. But at the hearing, the Health Commissioner, Dr. Neal L. Cohen, said he strongly supported using the tests. ''Clearance tests are important to confirm that the work has been done safely,'' he said.

Some Council members seemed dumbfounded that the Mayor's appointee had agreed with them.

Photo: City Councilmen Bill Perkins of Manhattan, left, and Archie Spigner of Queens at a public hearing for a bill on lead-paint poisoning. (Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times)(pg. B6)